Non-Regressive Liberal General

Good luck with that. You're right but that just doesn't go far enough for the coalition of special interests that is the DNC.

>>135597968
Is it at all possible for a society to maintain a consistent set of liberal and conservative values? In the past half century, we've seen it get more liberal obviously. So assuming the next generation is conservative, would it spiral out of control the way it has now? Is there any way to maintain a balance of morals?

>>135597968
How about remove the regulations and government forced monopolies on the health insurance and big pharma and let the freemarket competition drive down prices of healthcare? Why do you fags always think that big daddy government will be any better at dictating my healthcare needs than they were at foreign wars and the drug war?

>>135597968
You sound like a racist :^)

>>135598488
Right on.

>>135598838
Debate and discussion is the most important thing to help prevent a spiraling. The Internet is the most important thing we have right now for free and open communication, and it must be protected. Just look at what Jay Rockefeller said about the Internet and you'll see what I mean. Going back to my main point, regressive liberals have lost the art of the argument. The only way we're going to bring people together despite our ideological differences is to treat people with respect, actually listen to them, and work with them on things you agree on.

>>135597968
> Strongly pro-gun. Background checks at the most.
This is stupid. I'm against gun control because it's unrealistic. But our world would be better off if citizens didn't have them.
> 3rd-wave feminism and PC culture is toxic to society.
These are meaningless statements. You mean "people I group together based on my perception of their beliefs are bad 'cuz something-something, society!"
> Non-interventionist foreign policy.
This is dangerously moronic. Transportation and communication has made non-intervention impossible.
> Anti-TPP/NAFTA and pro-protectionism.
You are ignorant. These policies would harm Americans. You should read a book.

Dems need to work on the 3 Es

Economy
Education
Environment

>>135597968

I don't care about defining a true liberal so I'll just say where I stand with your opinions.

Wholeheartedly agree with:
>> Strongly pro-gun. Background checks at the most.
>> Let LGBT people marry, or at least get the government out of it. Churches can be allowed to deny a gay couple from marriage if they wish.
>> Private businesses can discriminate for any reason they want (they don't have to bake the cake for a gay person if they don't want to).
>> 3rd-wave feminism and PC culture is toxic to society.
>> Non-interventionist foreign policy.
>> Against NSA Spying/mass surveilance

Disagree with:
>> Anti-establishment.
>> Drugs should be legalized and the War on Drugs should be ended.
I'd love to just let people do whatever but I don't think this libertarian approach works when it comes to addictive drugs and the fact that they are prescribed. addictive drugs take away the ability to make rational decisions, the cornerstone of libertarianism.
>> Anti-TPP/NAFTA and pro-protectionism.
not pro-protectionism in most cases, but I'm up for modified trade agreements.

Need to clarify:
>> Universal healthcare is good.
with many conditions and limitations, maybe
>> Take care of the poor with a generous social safety net/welfare.
generous? no. appropriately sustainable? yes
>> Federal Reserve should be ended.
no educated opinion here

>>135599503

Dems need to shut up about guns. Full stop.

>>135600113
Not really. The only people who care about gun control are ultra-partisans. The people who oppose it would never vote for Democrats. The people who want it will give money to any candidate claiming to support it.

Supporting gun control is a win for Democrats. Just like opposing it is a win for Republicans. Which is why the issue persists even though the candidates on both sides know that no movement will occur.

It's theater.

>>135597968
>Universal healthcare is good.
No it's not. Imagine the post office was in charge of saving your life. Not so fucking great now, is it, libtard?
>Take care of the poor with a generous social safety net/welfare.
Its fairly obvious that this has nothing to do with liberalism, and has to do with bombarding pol will liberal niggershit wrapped in libertarian mainstays, like the ending of federal reserve.

All liberalism, even 'classical liberalism', is cancerous. Classic liberalism will always slippery slope to what is modern day liberalism.

>>135600324

It alienates votes from Republicans who Dems wants to convert

>>135600324
>Which is why the issue persists even though the candidates on both sides know that no movement will occur.
yes, this is why we have more and more regulations infringing on the second amendment.

Go shitpost somewhere else. Shuffle on off to buffalo fagestien.

>>135600413
>Supporting a welfare system has nothing to do with liberalism

What? That's been a mainstay of liberalism since The New Deal.

>>135600413
>No it's not. Imagine the post office was in charge of saving your life. Not so fucking great now, is it, libtard?
We already have socialized health insurance in the USA. It's called medicare, and it's the single most efficient health insurer in the market. It spends the most on healthcare and the least on bureaucracy.

>>135600529
No, it doesn't. Most Republicans don't care about gun control any more than most Democrats. The people who loudly oppose gun control would not suddenly vote Democrat tomorrow, even if the Democratic candidate personally handed out M16s to each and every one of them. They're ultra partisans.

>>135600683

Gun control is on the Democratic platform

It needs to not be on there

>>135597968
> Federal Reserve should be ended.
Start with this

>>135600808
You're flatly wrong. It doesn't. It energizes the Democratic base. Democrats lose nothing, because of it. You are not understanding fundamental facts about how American politics operate.

>>135600859
Most important issue for the past 100 years. Everything else is a different stage of the solution.

File: Doesn't mean what you think it means.jpg (9KB, 480x360px)

9KB, 480x360px

>>135600683
>it's the single most efficient health insurer in the market.
>Insurer
>Insurer
>Insurer
Wow, it's already happening...

>The people who loudly oppose gun control would not suddenly vote Democrat tomorrow, even if the Democratic candidate personally handed out M16s to each and every one of them.
Yeah, because there's more than one issue.
I know this is completely foreign, because liberalism is all about gibs, but put in effort, and it's not hard to understand, even for a lefty.

>>135600912

>People don't care about guns
>It energizes the base

????

>>135601029
>Yeah, because there's more than one issue.
Well no: because the people who care strongly about it are ultra-partisans. You could put a Democrat in front of them who supported the entire Republican platform. And a Republican in front of them who performed abortions in his clinic made of recycled guns, and those people would still vote for the Republican.

>>135601179
People whose votes can be won don't care about guns. The only people who care are the people who would never vote for the other party. This is why the issue persists: each side wins by playing to a donor base that costs them nothing to take money from and advocate for.

>>135601364
Reagan was the one who got the ball rolling on gun control you fucking idiot.

>>135602077
Your revisionism is false. But since you're claiming Reagan in particular, you already know that the Brady bill had nothing to do with Reagan, and that it never got to a vote until it was passed under Clinton.

>>135602320
I didn't revise shit. all I claimed was "got the ball rolling". There are tons of republicans running for office that run on gun control now. Reagan proves that republicans are not single issue, and not "ultra-partisan". You're just moving goalposts.

>>135602644
Reagan did not "get the ball rolling." He opined, rather famously, that the Brady act would do nothing to stop illegal gun purchases.

And no one is claiming that Republicans are single-issue voters. You're just semi-literate and can't follow a conversation.

>>135597968
forgot
>pro-blacks fucking your white daughters
>pro-playing right into the Jewish narative
>pro-white genocide

>>135602752
>The only people who care about gun control are ultra-partisans
>The people who want it will give money to any candidate claiming to support it.
>Supporting gun control is a win for Democrats. Just like opposing it is a win for Republicans.

>no one is claiming that Republicans are single-issue voters.

I have no idea how people like you live with yourselves.

>>135597968
I actually agree with most of this, but sadly I will never support most liberal policies anymore because the Democrat party has fucked up so much.

I would gladly see all liberties taken away from you awful people just to punish you for the shit you have tried to pull on America.

>>135603509
See? You're semi-literate. You read the words, and somehow turned "the people who care about gun-control are ultra-partisans" into "Republicans vote solely on gun control."

I don't think you understand what ultra-partisans means.

It's the exact opposite of saying that they're single-issue voters. It's a statement that they don't care about the issue at all.

Which you would be able to understand, if you had a decent grasp on the English language.

But you're quite dumb.

File: illiterate.jpg (88KB, 600x606px)

88KB, 600x606px

>>135603783
That's bullshit too, then, because republicans by and large voted for obama. There's even proof.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_and_conservative_support_for_Barack_Obama_in_2008
>everyone but me is an illiterate, rural, or suburban retard